AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Ln 521 Test Researcher

skill-levnikolaevich-claude-code-skills-ln-521-test-researcher · by levnikolaevich

Researches real-world problems, competitor solutions, and customer complaints for a feature domain. Use before test planning to ground tests in actual user pain points.

No reviews yet
0 installs
8 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-levnikolaevich-claude-code-skills-ln-521-test-researcher

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-levnikolaevich-claude-code-skills-ln-521-test-researcher)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
2mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Ln 521 Test Researcher? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

> Paths: File paths (references/, ../ln-*) are relative to this skill directory.

Inputs

| Input | Required | Source | Description | |-------|----------|--------|-------------| | storyId | Yes | args, git branch, kanban, user | Story to process |

Resolution: Story Resolution Chain. Status filter: To Review

Test Researcher

Type: L3 Worker

Researches real-world problems and edge cases before test planning to ensure tests cover actual user pain points, not just AC.

Purpose & Scope

  • Research common problems for the feature domain using Web Search, MCP Ref, Context7.
  • Analyze how competitors solve the same problem.
  • Find customer complaints and pain points from forums, StackOverflow, Reddit.
  • Post structured findings as a tracker comment (addComment) for later test-planning steps.
  • No test creation or status changes.

When to Use

This skill should be used when:

  • Use at the start of a test-planning workflow when feature-domain evidence is needed
  • Story has non-trivial functionality (external APIs, file formats, authentication)
  • Need to discover edge cases beyond AC

Skip research when:

  • Story is trivial (simple CRUD, no external dependencies)
  • Research comment already exists on Story
  • User explicitly requests to skip

Workflow

Phase 1: Discovery

MANDATORY READ: Load references/input_resolution_pattern.md

  1. Resolve storyId: Run Story Resolution Chain per guide (status filter: [To Review]).
  1. Auto-discover Team ID from docs/tasks/kanban_board.md

Phase 2: Extract Feature Domain

1) Fetch Story via the configured tracker provider (getStory) 2) Parse Story goal and AC to identify:

  • What technology/API/format is involved?
  • What is the user's goal? (e.g., "translate XLIFF files", "authenticate via OAuth")

3) Extract keywords for research queries

Phase 3: Research Common Problems

Use available tools to find real-world problems:

1) Web Search:

  • "[feature] common problems"
  • "[format] edge cases"
  • "[API] gotchas"
  • "[technology] known issues"

2) MCP Ref:

  • ref_search_documentation("[feature] error handling best practices")
  • ref_search_documentation("[format] validation rules")

3) Context7:

  • Query relevant library docs for known issues
  • Check API documentation for limitations

Phase 4: Research Competitor Solutions

1) Web Search:

  • "[competitor] [feature] how it works"
  • "[feature] comparison"
  • "[product type] best practices"

2) Analysis:

  • How do market leaders handle this functionality?
  • What UX patterns do they use?
  • What error handling approaches are common?

Phase 5: Research Customer Complaints

1) Web Search:

  • "[feature] complaints"
  • "[product type] user problems"
  • "[format] issues reddit"
  • "[format] issues stackoverflow"

2) Analysis:

  • What do users actually struggle with?
  • What are common frustrations?
  • What gaps exist between user expectations and typical implementations?

Phase 6: Compile and Post Findings

1) Compile findings into categories:

  • Input validation issues (malformed data, encoding, size limits)
  • Edge cases (empty input, special characters, Unicode)
  • Error handling (timeouts, rate limits, partial failures)
  • Security concerns (injection, authentication bypass)
  • Competitor advantages (features we should match or exceed)
  • Customer pain points (problems users actually complain about)

2) Post tracker comment (addComment) on Story with research summary:

## Test Research: {Feature}

### Sources Consulted
- [Source 1](url)
- [Source 2](url)

### Common Problems Found
1. **Problem 1:** Description + test case suggestion
2. **Problem 2:** Description + test case suggestion

### Competitor Analysis
- **Competitor A:** How they handle this + what we can learn
- **Competitor B:** Their approach + gaps we can exploit

### Customer Pain Points
- **Complaint 1:** What users struggle with + test to prevent
- **Complaint 2:** Common frustration + how to verify we solve it

### Recommended Test Coverage
- [ ] Test case for problem 1
- [ ] Test case for competitor parity
- [ ] Test case for customer pain point

---
_This research informs both manual tests (ln-522) and automated tests (ln-523)._

Critical Rules

  • No test creation: Only research and documentation.
  • No status changes: Only tracker comment.
  • Source attribution: Always include URLs for sources consulted.
  • Actionable findings: Each problem should suggest a test case.
  • Skip trivial Stories: Don't research "Add button to page".

Runtime Summary Artifact

MANDATORY READ: Load references/test_planning_summary_contract.md, references/test_planning_worker_runtime_contract.md

Runtime profile:

  • family: test-planning-worker
  • worker: ln-521
  • summary kind: test-planning-worker
  • payload fields used by coordinators: worker, status, warnings, research_comment_path

Invocation rules:

  • standalone: omit runId and summaryArtifactPath
  • managed: pass both runId and exact summaryArtifactPath
  • always write the validated summary before terminal outcome

Definition of Done

  • [ ] Feature domain extracted from Story (technology/API/format identified)
  • [ ] Common problems researched (Web Search + MCP Ref + Context7)
  • [ ] Competitor solutions analyzed (at least 1-2 competitors)
  • [ ] Customer complaints found (forums, StackOverflow, Reddit)
  • [ ] Findings compiled into categories
  • [ ] Tracker comment posted with "## Test Research: {Feature}" header
  • [ ] At least 3 recommended test cases suggested

Output: Tracker comment with research findings for ln-522 and ln-523 to use.

Reference Files

  • Research methodology: Web Search, MCP Ref, Context7 tools
  • Comment format: Structured markdown with sources
  • Downstream consumers: ln-522-manual-tester, ln-523-auto-test-planner
  • MANDATORY READ: Load references/research_tool_fallback.md

Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-15

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.